At COP31 in Antalya, Turkey, climate diplomacy is confronting a problem that extends well beyond emissions targets: governments are trying to coordinate a long-term transition while wars, trade disputes and energy shocks push them toward short-term security. The conference has put a proposed goal of raising electricity’s share of global energy use to 35% by 2035 at the centre of negotiations, up from just over 20% today. The proposal reflects a practical political calculation: electrification can connect climate policy with industrial competitiveness and energy independence. But critics argue that electrification alone will not curb warming if countries continue expanding fossil-fuel production and consumption.
The tension is visible in the summit’s timing. The war involving the United States, Israel and Iran has disrupted Middle Eastern oil shipments and sent fuel prices higher, while governments have scrambled to secure alternative supplies. Reuters reported that Middle East crude and condensate outages had fallen to about 3.8 million barrels a day as Saudi and Iraqi output recovered, but disruption around the Strait of Hormuz remained a concern. Oil prices still rose roughly 1% on November 11 after an Iranian official said enriched nuclear material would remain in Iran, underscoring how quickly diplomacy can be translated into energy-market risk. Reuters on COP31 and energy security
Security is reshaping the climate argument
For climate advocates, the lesson is straightforward: dependence on imported fossil fuels leaves economies exposed to military escalation and coercion. A faster shift to renewable power, electric transport, storage and more efficient buildings could reduce exposure to volatile fuel markets. The case is strengthened by the economic damage associated with disruption. The OECD projects global GDP growth of 2.9% in 2026 and 3.0% in 2027, while warning that higher energy prices, stronger price pressures and weaker real incomes will restrain momentum. Its forecast also says robust artificial-intelligence investment and an assumed easing of energy prices could support growth through 2027. OECD Economic Outlook
That argument does not eliminate the transition’s political costs. Building grids, batteries and clean-energy supply chains requires substantial capital, minerals and permitting reform. Consumers may support cleaner energy in principle while resisting higher bills, new transmission lines or changes to transport and heating. Developing economies also argue that wealthy countries, whose historical emissions are much larger, should provide more finance and technology rather than demanding equally rapid domestic sacrifices.
The credibility gap
The proposed 35% electricity target could give governments a measurable signal for sectors such as vehicles, industry and buildings. Yet the composition of electricity matters. Electrification powered by coal can raise demand without delivering the promised climate benefits; electrification powered by low-carbon sources requires reliable grids and sufficient investment. The unresolved question is therefore not only how much energy becomes electric, but how quickly electricity systems become cleaner.
That is why critics at COP31 are pressing for a clearer pathway away from fossil fuels. A target framed around electricity may be easier for governments to accept than an explicit fossil-fuel phaseout, but it could also allow producers to present expanded gas or oil use as compatible with climate progress. The dispute reflects a broader divide between those seeking politically achievable incremental commitments and those warning that incrementalism is incompatible with the pace of warming.
Extreme events are adding urgency. Reuters reported that 2026 had brought severe heatwaves across Western Europe and a glacier collapse in Nepal that triggered a catastrophic flood, killing more than 1,450 people, with thousands still missing. Such events make adaptation unavoidable, but they also sharpen arguments for prevention. Governments must spend on resilient infrastructure while reducing the emissions that intensify future risks, a budgetary challenge made harder by war and high borrowing costs.
What comes next
The immediate test will be whether negotiators convert the electrification proposal into commitments on grids, finance, fossil fuels and implementation. A broad headline target without national plans could produce diplomatic momentum but limited physical change. Conversely, an agreement that links electrification to investment and measurable clean-power expansion could make energy security a durable coalition for climate action.
Markets will remain an imperfect but powerful pressure point. If Middle Eastern tensions ease, lower oil prices may reduce the political urgency of reform. If disruption returns, governments may accelerate diversification—but could also subsidize domestic fossil fuels in the name of security. The outcome will depend on whether leaders treat the current shock as a reason to delay the transition or as evidence that reliance on concentrated fuel supplies is itself a strategic vulnerability.
COP31 cannot resolve those contradictions alone. Its significance will be measured less by the ambition of its final language than by whether countries leave with policies capable of surviving the next oil shock, military crisis or climate disaster.